DISPOSAL Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 30, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to streamline the disposal of underutilized federal properties to enhance government efficiency, reduce the national deficit, and modernize the federal real estate footprint, but it does so by granting broad administrative discretion and waiving several existing federal protections.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the General Services Administration (GSA) to dispose of six specific federal buildings in Washington, D.C., through sale or ground lease. It also grants the GSA Administrator authority to add up to 20 additional underutilized federal buildings annually to the disposal list, with certain exemptions from environmental, historic preservation, and homeless assistance laws. Net proceeds from these disposals are first used to cover relocation and implementation costs, with any remaining funds directed towards reducing the national deficit.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a critical step towards reducing government waste by divesting from costly, underutilized federal assets. They contend it will generate significant revenue for deficit reduction, free up valuable real estate for private sector development, and allow federal agencies to operate more efficiently in modern facilities, ultimately saving taxpayer money and optimizing the federal property portfolio.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the broad exemptions from the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and National Historic Preservation Act could lead to the loss of vital social services, environmental protections, and irreplaceable historic landmarks. They may also contend that the preclusion of judicial review and extensive administrative discretion could reduce transparency and accountability in the disposal process, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes or unforeseen negative consequences.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
Mandatory Disposal of Specific Federal Buildings
This provision requires the Administrator of General Services to dispose of six named federal buildings in Washington, D.C.: the Frances Perkins, James V. Forrestal, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert C. Weaver, Department of Agriculture South, and Hubert H. Humphrey Federal Buildings. The disposal can be a sale for fair market value at highest and best use, or a ground lease with a term of up to 99 years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the issue of underutilized federal assets by targeting specific, high-value properties for disposal, thereby reducing the federal footprint and generating substantial revenue for the Treasury.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating the disposal of specific, often iconic, federal buildings without a more flexible, case-by-case review could lead to suboptimal sales or the loss of historically significant structures.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the immediate goal of reducing federal property overhead and generating revenue against potential long-term strategic value or historic preservation concerns associated with specific federal assets.
Section 2(a)(3) and Section 2(b)
GSA Administrator's Discretion in Disposal and Relocation
The Administrator of General Services is granted broad authority to approve sale or ground lease transactions under terms deemed in the best interests of the United States. This includes relocating federal agencies to other federal buildings or allowing a leaseback of up to 5 years. The Administrator also has sole discretion in selecting relocation sites for agencies, with consultation, but is prohibited from entering into 'build-to-suit' leases and is exempt from certain procurement requirements.
Section 2(a)(4) and Section 2(e)(1)(D)
Exemptions from Environmental and Historic Preservation Laws
Disposals of the initial six federal buildings are exempt from the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and certain titles of U.S. Code related to public buildings and property. For additional buildings added to the disposal list, the McKinney-Vento exemption only applies if the building is larger than 100,000 square feet, and the NHPA exemption only if it is designated as a National Historic Landmark.
Section 2(a)(5)
Prohibition on Foreign Ownership
This provision prohibits the Administrator from selling any of the federal buildings or entering into a ground lease with any foreign person, foreign entity, or any entity where a foreign person is a beneficial owner. The definitions for 'beneficial owner,' 'foreign entity,' and 'foreign person' are drawn from the Secure Federal LEASEs Act.
Section 2(c)
Allocation of Disposal Proceeds
Net proceeds from the disposals are first deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund to cover the costs of implementing this section, including agency relocation expenses. Any additional amounts remaining after these costs are then deposited into the general fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction. Funds deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund require a specific future appropriation from Congress to be expended.
Section 2(e)(1)
Expansion of Disposal Authority for Underutilized Buildings
The Administrator may add up to 20 additional federal buildings per calendar year to the disposal list, provided they have a utilization rate below 60% on average over the preceding year. This requires 30 days advance notice to relevant congressional committees, and Congress can disapprove the addition. Specific exemptions for McKinney-Vento and NHPA apply differently to these additional buildings, as detailed in Section 2(e)(1)(D).
This subsection states that any action taken by the Administrator to carry out this section shall not be subject to judicial review, including under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:While not necessarily 'buried' in a deceptive way, it is a critical legal clause that significantly limits accountability. Such clauses are often included to prevent litigation from delaying executive actions, which can be a standard legislative practice, but it is also a point of contention regarding checks and balances.
Case for: Proponents would argue that precluding judicial review is essential to prevent endless litigation from delaying or halting critical government operations, especially property disposals aimed at efficiency and deficit reduction. It ensures the Administrator can act decisively without undue legal interference.
Case against: Opponents would contend that removing judicial review eliminates a crucial check on executive power, potentially allowing the Administrator to act arbitrarily or in ways that violate other statutory or constitutional principles without recourse for affected parties or the public.
Estimated impact: High impact on legal accountability and the potential for challenging GSA's decisions under this act.
This provision states that a notice submitted by the Administrator to add additional federal buildings to the disposal list shall be considered a rule for purposes of section 802 of title 5, United States Code (the Congressional Review Act).
Section 2(e)(1)(E)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative mechanism. While it grants Congress a specific power, the reference to 'section 802 of title 5' might not immediately convey its meaning to a non-specialist. It's standard practice to use such references for procedural matters.
Case for: Proponents would argue that applying the Congressional Review Act ensures that Congress retains a check on the Administrator's power to add buildings to the disposal list, allowing for legislative disapproval if the additions are deemed inappropriate.
Case against: Critics might argue that while it provides a mechanism for disapproval, the CRA process itself is often difficult to successfully invoke, meaning the Administrator's decisions might effectively proceed unchallenged in many cases.
Estimated impact: Moderate impact on congressional oversight, providing a formal but high-bar mechanism for legislative review of GSA's decisions to add properties to the disposal list.